The Liberal Bubble

We went to visit our liberal friend in New York. The last I was there before, the WTC towers were still standing. The Giuliani reforms just started working.

Before we went, we all agreed not to talk politics but we all know how difficult that is. Everything is politics.We drove by a school proudly declaring itself a magnet school on a sign above its entrance. “I hate these things” she said. “Why?” I asked. She started to explain and in the middle of the explanation she asked a rhetorical question: “who wouldn’t agree that we need excellent public education?” My wife and I answered in almost perfect unison: “I wouldn’t”- said I, “I would, it is just not possible” – said my wife.
“Well, there you go” she said in apparent shock and that was the end of the conversation.

Her incomplete explanation was pointing to the usual leftist arguments justifying coercion: we have to force everybody to do things our way for the greater good, because it is unfair to the rest to allow some to have it better, besides, allowing some to have it better means fewer resources for the rest which will further diminish their ability to compete with the privileged.
What her question implied was the foundational socialist credo: “who wouldn’t agree that we should all be equal?” That we should all get the same, ‘excellent’ health care, education, pension and whatever services we all decide that we all should be provided with. We could start arguing with these points on any number of grounds, practical, biological, psychological, moral and philosophical, but it was not the subject that fascinated me the most. It was the reaction. The shock over our answers to her question which she considered beyond any possibility of discussion. She meant it to be the starting point of her argument.
I could call it a platitude, but the question had a function, the establishment of a baseline of agreement, the prerequisite to any further discussion:
Who wouldn’t agree that the state must provide education to all who need it?
Who wouldn’t agree that the state should be in full control of its finances, its curriculum, its policies?
Who wouldn’t agree that it must be compulsory to serve the interest of ‘society’?
Who wouldn’t agree that we should aim for equal outcomes that would be jeopardized if we treated some students differently?

Who wouldn’t agree that we should not allow ordinary people to make selfish decisions about the education of their children, jeopardizing the general welfare of the collective?

All of these and more are implied in the one word: “public.”
‘Public’ simply means taxpayer financed, state coerced, bureaucracy controlled, but the left sees all these as blessings that will guarantee the much desired equal outcome, which, I think, comes closest to their definition of ‘excellent.’

Our answers were a genuine shock to her. How could I explain that I do not agree with any government involvement in education at any level and to any extent? That I even agree with Rothbard who argued very well that education should not even be compulsory?
We cannot possibly have a discussion if we cannot agree on the most basic assumptions about it, but how could I confront an unexamined, moralizing assumption with a complex set of evidence showing why the assumptions are wrong?
If I pressed it, she probably would have said that what I would find desirable (an unconditional voucher system) will never happen therefore there is no point in talking about it; we shouldn’t even consider trying it.
The fact that we even started the conversation clearly indicates that she sees problems in the present system, problems that she blames (probably among other things) on magnet schools. Her question was an expression of credo, a set of basic tenets that should not be discussed. We can talk about fixing the existing machinery; we cannot talk about replacing it. No matter how bad ‘public’ education is and no matter how ‘excellent’ the alternatives prove themselves to be, we all just must agree that what we need is “excellent public education.”

This was obviously just an example but it demonstrated to me perfectly how the left is increasingly likely to live in an intellectual bubble. Like-minded people whipping each other into a righteous frenzy that is also fed by the media, the entire educational establishment and political activists.

The ideas behind the world view this bubble is built upon are fundamentally political advancing the interests of particular political classes. Their basic assumptions are not questioned or analyzed and when they are questioned from the outside, those who are questioning them are dismissed as insane. Much the same way the later day soviets treated their opponents as insane.

I must point out that the political right is not entirely blameless of a similarly closed minded attitude but at least they are a bit more likely to get at least the principles – individual freedom and personal responsibility – right.
Liberals hardly get anything right, but it does not matter. They don’t need to prove that they are right. They only have to win. To win, they need to be motivated. To be motivated, they need emotional and ‘intellectual’ support and reinforcement. They need to live in a bubble.
Living in a bubble is comfortable.
Living with the belief that you are on the right side of history is reassuring.
Living with the conviction of moral superiority is empowering.
Living with the knowledge that you are winning the war is exciting.
Living in liberal New York must be great.

Post navigation

2 replies on “The Liberal Bubble”

I won’t argue about any points you have made, I actually agree with all of them.

But what is your friends issue with Magnet schools? My middle child is in one and we fought hard to get him there. He is in a Magnet school that leans towards Math and Science which we feel is important for his future. Other magnet schools lean in other directions.
This doesn’t mean my son is getting a better education then a student in a non-magnet school, he is getting an education tailored towards the theme of the school (Science, technology and Math), the school doesn’t get any special funding compared to other Public Schools, and they don’t get any other special treats that are not accessible to any other school.

I like the magnet school system cause it allows me to get a more refined education for my child in the areas that I think my child needs, instead of just putting him thru all the general education crap that I hated when I was his age.

He has flourished at his new school, and loves everything he is doing. Your friend needs to check what the school actually does for kids.

I don’t exactly know, Chris what her issue is, I asked her to explain it to you. As I mentioned, we did not finish the conversation.
Here is my understanding of the most likely reasoning:
We have a system that has problems. She obviously thinks that “we need excellent public education”
The key words in your comment were that “you fought hard to get a more refined education for your child” what this translates to is that you wanted to have something better than the rest gets. Liberals want equality and they also see the world as a zero sum game where anybody’s gain must come at someone else’s expense. By putting your child into a better school, you made the rest worse. Any special attention given to a magnet school means that we have that much less attention given in the rest of the system. It means stratification. It means that we think that some kids are better and deserve more, that some deserve special attention. This is discrimination. We need a system where everybody wins.
You and I know that this is a silly notion, but that is how the left sees it.
We have a distant relative, a school teacher in BC who told us that they were given clear instructions: If you have 1% of your students who are mentally behind, you must devote 99% of your efforts to make them catch up with the rest. Who wouldn’t agree with that?
It is all about priorities, it’s all about ‘equality’

Meta

The dialog didn’t, doesn’t and won’t die peacefully. Yes, it is still kicking, it is still getting up to feed on the brain of whatever is still alive. The dialog is zombified. The censorship, the lawfare, the protests, the riots, the shouting down of speakers, and the firing of those who get out of line […]

In my last post I vented my frustration with the sorry state of the left-right dialog. I described the problem, but we are still left with a set of questions: What is the basis of the differences? What makes them so predictable? What stands in the way of productive communication? Political ideology There could be […]

The title of this post is not a mistake. Even though it is ‘the’ autopsy of some dialogs, I would not share it with you if they were not such perfect examples of what is going on in ‘THE’ dialog between the left and the right. The dialog at this point is pretty much dead, […]

I was observing yet another strange discussion conducted seriously on serious subjects by serious people. Serious philosophical arguments based on painfully obvious fallacies: Truth can (and should) be absolute Certain moral principles are universal The most fundamental human rights are “natural” Every one of the above statements is wrong. Truth cannot be absolute and it […]

About two months ago I received a forward from a friend with the subject: “Science needs your voice.” Of course it was baloney. They didn’t need my voice, they were asking for my money. The implied assumption is that their voice is my voice, and what science needs is their political advocacy. Both assumptions are […]